beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.
Reasons
Criminal facts
On January 13, 2012, the Defendant was released on December 24, 2012, and the parole period passed on March 18, 2013, when the Gwangju District Court sentenced one year and six months to imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.
At around 14:17 on July 29, 2014, the Defendant: (a) destroyed D’s vacant houses by putting waste into a newspaper site any more heated and heated and heated for the reason that the weather weather in cleaning the said house together with D was heated and difficult, and caused a fire to brupt, bed, bed, and bed, etc. inside the inside the newspaper; (b) the Defendant destroyed D’s vacant houses; (c) the E influence was transferred to the house roof used as a residence by the E influence; and (d) the Defendant destroyed KRW 1,832,00,000 for repair expenses.
Summary of Evidence
Defendant’s partial statement
B. Before each police interrogation protocol E and each police's protocol of statement of statement of F, the investigation report of each police's protocol of statement of statement of F is attached to the statement: Criminal records, two copies of the judgment, two copies of the judgment, the pertinent legal provisions concerning the criminal facts to which the Act applies, and Article 164 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment, and all of them, the prosecutor prosecuted the instant facts charged by deeming that the instant facts charged are in a commercial concurrent relationship.
However, since the purpose of all the fire prevention crimes and general buildings and fire prevention crimes is to protect human life, body, property, etc. from the danger that might be caused by the fire, it is reasonable to view that a single fire prevention act constitutes a crime of most severe punishment if a single crime of fire prevention can be assessed as a whole, not entirely separate danger due to each fire, but entirely as a danger to public safety.
In this case, the fire prevention of the defendant can be assessed as one act, and D's vacant houses.